Ty: Jorge e-mails to ask, in reference to Harry Reid's remarks, why it's racist to discuss skin tones among African-Americans?
Stan: Clarification, Ty. He's asking why some other people have made this claim?
Ty: No, he's stating we made this claim.
Betty: Jorge needs to e-mail someone who's made that assertion. We have never asserted that. We have long -- Cedric, Marcia, Stan and myself -- discussed here the issues and benefits some skin tones receive within the Black community. I list us and leave out Ann not to be rude to her or to ignore her own contributions but to note that this has been a long, long process here and at our own sites. Cedric and I have been doing it here since 2005. Ann created her site last year. She has certainly addressed it at her site and here. But I'm emphasizing that this issue is not new and it is certainly not new to this site or to this community. If Jorge's confused, that's on him. I won't play like, "Oh, I'm sorry you misunderstood . . ." because I'm not. You haven't listened if you misunderstood. We've addressed this topic repeatedly for years and years. As a very dark skinned Black woman, you better believe I'm aware of it.
Cedric: As Betty points out, we all address it and she and I have been addressing it here and at our own sites as far back as 2005. I have no idea why Jorge is confused. The articles that appeared here on Reid were "No, Harry, we don't forgive you" and "Roundtable." That was January 10th, we didn't cover the subject last Sunday. I know Betty, Marcia, Stan and Ann have all moved away from it at their sites to cover other things but you can check their sites and you're not going to find, "Oh, no! Skin tone was mentioned!" There were people who were offended by Reid's talk of skin tones -- including a number of White people on MSNBC -- but it was not an issue to us.
Stan: I'm going to ask that we insert the portion I'm about to read from the roundtable Cedric just mentioned:
Ty: What Betty and I are talking about, a White man, supposedly a liberal, using the term "Negro" in 2008. When I heard the story, and I heard it on radio, it was about "light skinned" -- Barack being "light skinned" and they didn't really go into the entire story or mention that Harry Reid had used the N-word.
Cedric: I heard it on the radio as well, different station, different area of the country. And I figured it would be touched on here. Maybe in a silly article, something written to get a laugh. And I was tossing around a few ideas for that. Then Betty is just furious and I'm not getting why and Ann's explaining to me what's going on.
Ann: Right. Same radio station, Cedric and I listen to the same radio stations. But I heard an early report and had heard of the word "Negro." Once Barack decided it was okay -- a decision he can't make -- our local radio station dropped the word "Negro" from their report.
Stan: I was different. I saw it online first. And it didn't really register. I think I was just disgusted by Reid's entire remarks. However, around the second or third story I read, I started asking myself, "Why aren't they making an issue of Harry Reid using 'Negro' to refer to Black people?"
Marcia: And that's when my cousin called me. Stan calls me and asks me about it and I've missed the story because it's Saturday and I'm doing my weekend stuff. So I do like a lot of us, I pull up three to five different articles on the same story. And I'm flipping from one to the next and at the end of the five, no one's raised the issue of Reid using "Negro." Hate to break it to White America, but somewhere around the dawn of the seventies, that term stopped being used. And I do find it insulting.
Stan (Con't): Now you can look at the other remarks, that's only a sampling, and you'll see we weren't saying a word about skin tone. I didn't quote Betty. I'm going to note the first thing she wrote on this at her site, so important that she did a Sunday post and we're all so tired from this that none of us get online Sunday after we finish at Third --
Ann: Except C.I.
Stan: Except C.I. Sorry. Thanks, Ann. So here's Betty writing about the press fixation on the skin tones while they ignore the real insult:
Barack Obama was not the target of the insult in Reid's remarks. The point of Reid's remarks was that America could accept "light skinned" Barack in a way that they wouldn't someone else. I'd say, "The way that they wouldn't accept a real Black politician." (I'm no bi-racial. Unlike Barack, I can't pass nor can my children.) If that were the only comment, I'd be rolling my eyes. I really don't care if the two boyfriends Harry and Barry have a lover's spat. I have other things to focus on. But that's not where it ended. Harry Reid went on to praise Barry as a "light skinned" person who has "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." That's offensive and that's aimed at Blacks, it's not aimed at Airy-fairy Barry, it's aimed at me, it's aimed my children, it's aimed at my family, it's aimed at my church and I take it very personally. I will give Colbert King some credit for this Washington Post post. At least he's aware that the use of "Negro" is offensive. But he goes on to talk about slave dialects and really doesn't get it. That's not what Harry Reid was talking about.
Stan (Con't): Now she wrote about it again and again and again. She rejected the claims that it was like Trent Lott's remarks noting that Lott took the issue to BET and took accountability while the Monday after the news broke on the weekend, Harry Reid announces he is done discussing the subject. At another post, she's explaining, "He was talking to two White man, in 2008, and the way to refer to Black people or African-Americans was with the term 'Negro'." Now I could go on and on with this topic but I'll note that Jorge is confused or intentionally misleading.
Marcia: Betty may want to jump in but I'm leaping over her because, while she hit hard on this subject, I really think the more she wrote, the better she got. The thing Stan quoted at the end was really her last post on the subject and she is so right: It's what Reid and two White men use to refer to African-Americans or Blacks when no person of color is present: "Negro."
Jim: I agree with Betty's writings and think she nailed it, like Marcia said, but to anticipate e-mails -- thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com -- from anyone claiming, "Well it's on the census!" -- that's been the big talking point -- "So what's wrong with it?"
C.I.: Excuse me but that line of 'logic' was always bulls**t and if anyone wants to argue it's not, then let's see Harry Reid address a group of African-Americans with the opening of, "Hello, Negroes, thank you for coming."
Betty: Amen! I really hadn't thought much of the issue Jim's bringing up now. I'd heard it but I hadn't thought of it and I'm not sure if anyone else had because there was a pause -- lengthy -- before C.I. responded to Jim's question. I think we were all trying to choose our words because, where we go, is to elders. Before that issue is raised, I want to say C.I. is exactly right. If there's nothing wrong with Harry Reid's use of "Negro," then let's seem him address Black communities with that term.
Ty: Agreed. I'll pick up on the issue of elders. My grandmother identifies as Black. I don't know anyone of her age or older who identifies as "Negro." I'm sure some do. But that nonsense -- "well it's on the Census" -- immediately shut down the dialogue because a lot of us wanted to choose our words carefully due to not wanting to insult elders who might use the term.
Ann: Ty's talking about how we held off in our own conversations and in whatever passes for "Black media" these days. He's right about that and we just had a really good example because when Jim played devil's advocate there we all fell silent. We were jumping in before, couldn't wait to be the next to weigh in, but then that issue, the census, was raised and we all go silent. I really don't care, I'll speak frankly, I really don't care that some African-Americans or Blacks may be comfortable with the term "Negro." If you're Black, you're fully aware that some Blacks use the other n-word. Does that mean it should be on the census? Does it mean Harry Reid, speaking with two other White men, should be using that term to refer to my race? No.
Cedric: I'll back my wife. We both do work with our church, with older members, and Three Cool Old Guys -- who write a column for the gina & krista round-robin, are old enough to remember the days before the Civil Rights Movement. And they don't refer to one another as "Negro." But if they did, it doesn't matter. The majority of African-Americans or Blacks do not use that term to self-refer or self-identify and there's no excuse for Harry Reid to use it.
Betty: I would agree with everything's that been said and Ann brought up the other n-word so let me comment there. My father, to this day, would be grossly disappointed in me if I ever used that word. We were taught, rightly, my sisters, my brother and me, that we can't expect respect for our race if we're tearing our race down by tossing around the n-word, but, boy, have I been tempted from time to time when posting. And I know Marcia has as well.
Marcia: I have a post where I let it rip and I say I'm not going to hold back, and I just let it rip and hold everyone accountable -- men and women, so-called feminists, you name it -- for what they did to Hillary's campaign. And before I wrote it and before I published it, I called C.I. C.I.'s first words of advice were, "Marcia, you're so upsetting your voice is shaking. Whether you publish it or not, you need to write about this topic. If you don't, you're bottling it up and it's going to stress you out and harm you." So I wrote it and I had one self-edit. Then I called C.I. and read it word for word. C.I. said, "You're angry. It's very clear you are furious. You are offering your opinions and you're not prettying it up. If you want to publish it, publish it. I will stand by you if you get any heat -- from within the community or outside -- but I don't think you'll get any heat." And I really didn't. I did publish it and even the ones who hate my site weren't bothered by that post. I've considered, many months later, taking it down because I'm not that angry now. And "anger"? I was enraged. But I won't take it down. That captures where I was at on that day and it wasn't a pretty place and I don't want to forget it. I don't want to erase it. But I mentioned I had one self-edit. That was that n-word. I was so close to using it throughout as I wrote. But I thought, I don't use it, I've never used it, I won't start now. But that's the only term I didn't use.
Betty: Marcia, if I can ask, what was the reason? You said you'd never used it and I'm just wondering the reason. If I can back up, a lot of us do. A lot of us in the Black community use that term. I wish we didn't. But we do. And for me, I don't use it because of the message my father imparted. My mother didn't make an issue out of it, she let him make an issue out of it. She made an issue out of swearing. But that's why I've never used it in conversation.
Marcia: I was bused. I think I'm probably the only one participating who was. Busing was an experiment in the seventies towards integration. White students and African-American students were frequently bused out of the schools in their own district into another district in an attempt to achieve better racial standards and relations for all. That's when I heard the n-word for the first time. And it wasn't said sweetly or in a rap way. It was hurled as an insult.
Ann: That really makes me want to cry. I'm sorry to jump in. But it's an ugly word used to hurt and I think most of us, most who are Black, have probably heard it at one time or another, but to hear it when you're away from home and your family's not there. When you're at a school you don't know. It just makes me very sad.
Marcia: Well I did feel very alone. I was in the classroom and it was a mean kid, a White boy, in the seat ahead of me and then the guy in the seat behind me joined in. I really didn't know what the word was other than it had something to do with my skin color and that it was being said as an insult. But thats why I don't use the term. I do return to that. And that was a very scary moment because, as Ann points out, my parents aren't around and I'm not in my neighborhood. I'm trapped at a school. My parents really can't come and get me. They'll have to leave work and it will be a long drive. I'm stuck and these two bullies are picking on me and no one, not even the teacher pretending not to hear it, is defending me.
Jess: If it's okay to ask, did it stop? How did it stop?
Marcia: They got louder and louder, the two boys, and then one of them reached for me. At that point, I grabbed my text book and hit him across the face with it. I was sent to the principal's office. He was a White man and that does matter in terms of my life because, unlike the teacher, he didn't ignore what had happened. He punished the boys, made them apologize to me, called their parents in and then put me in another class and introduced me to the class as his "friend" saying he knew no one was going to be mean or pick on his friend. And he did check on me regularly and also began going through the classrooms at random. My parents always thought he was just shocked that this would be okay in his school and horrified that it would be considered okay in front of a teacher. My mother liked him a lot. When I told my folks at dinner what had happened, my mother made plans to meet with the principal the next day and did. She liked him. And she and my father felt that the issue was now being dealt with but they also made it clear that I could go into private school if I wanted.
Ruth: Did you?
Marcia: No. I made friends -- White ones and Black ones. And the principal had scared the two bullies so badly that they never messed with me again. But my own feelings on busing are that I'm opposed to it. I think it was an effort by adults to improve race relations and academic access and all that. But I don't think they ever grasped what it would be like to be a kid riding one of those buses. I'm not even talking about the racial component right now, I'm talking about the "I live here but I go to school all the way over there."
Ty: Okay. I'll move on to another e-mail. Betty -- not our Betty -- e-mails to ask if we're aware that Naomi Wolf who "can't stop slamming and sliming Republicans" has "a long history of applauding them in the past? One example is 'Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!' I'll assume her drug use has effected her memory but that column was from 2007." Anyone?
Rebecca: I find it hilarious that Naomi wants to play the abortion card in 2008 and 2009 but in 2007 is praising Ron Paul who most abortion rights supporters do not see as a friend -- to put it mildly.
Jim: That's Rebecca participating from London. Rebecca, you're in England and I was wondering if you had anything to say on that.
Rebecca: Nothing! I can't talk about it. I'm helping a friend working for the Labour Party. I can say thank you to Wally for blogging for me at my blog last week and I can say thank you to C.I. for watching my little girl. I hope to be back next weekend. That will depend on how much damage Tony Blair's testimony does or doesn't do when he appears before the Iraq Inquiry later this week. I can tell you this, Blair's not communicating with Labour leadership ahead of his appearance, at least not so far. And, for those who don't know, England will be holding Parliamentary elections -- think Congress in the US -- shortly.
Jim: Gordon Brown, the current prime minister, the one replaced Tony Blair as prime minister, will be testifying before the elections as well. Do you have anything to say on that?
Rebecca: I don't. But I will say C.I. has good sources -- I'm not one of C.I.'s sources -- and if you're trying to follow what goes on behind the scenes, read her. She is correct that I was asked to come to London because it was thought Brown would be testifying. She was also correct in a number of things on Friday that even I wasn't aware of it. I read that as I was getting ready to go to sleep and had to pick up the phone and start asking, "Is this true?" And then gripe that we need to know all of this and I shouldn't be reading about it online.
Jim: To be clear, the person you were asking "Is this true?" was not C.I.
Rebecca: No. As she has noted, as C.I. has noted, my calls to her are usually "Hey, how are you?" quick and then she hands the phone to my daughter. I always plan to talk to C.I. after that but I usually have to get off the phone in about five minutes because something's come up. So I'm usually saying bye-bye to my daughter and off the phone.
Dona: Rebecca, there were e-mails, when C.I. noted she was watching your daughter, there were e-mails to the public account at TCI wondering why that was? Why you didn't take your daughter with you?
Rebecca: England's not a pool of malaria or anything like that, however, I did call my child's doctor and was told that we should consider a few shots and that's when I decided if it happened -- if I was needed here -- I wouldn't bring my daughter. At that point, I considered who and it was a short list -- who I could entrust her too. Trina was on my list but she's already taking care of her grandchild, Ruth was on my list and X-ed for the same reason as Trina. That left my sisters, Elaine and C.I. I called Elaine to get her input and she was of the opinion it should be C.I. Elaine said she'd herself would do it gladly but that it would be better to go with C.I. because C.I. would be on the road, the scenery would change constantly and my daughter wouldn't be bored. My sisters were on the list and X-ed themselves off when they made it a competition of who do I trust more? So that left C.I. Who really wasn't give a choice or a vote in it. I kept meaning to talk about it with her but really didn't. Then Sunday, while she was partying after the Globes, I called her and said, "I have to leave tomorrow. Can you watch my child?" That meant she and Wally flew out Monday and we met at the Boston airport as Flyboy and I left for England and handed off the baby.
Jim: Before you left, you had already voted absentee, correct?
Rebecca: In Tuesday's election? Yes. I took Scott Brown for the block.
Jim: So did Mike. I'm not sure about Trina. But let's turn to those two and the topic of the election in Massachusetts. Trina?
Trina: Who I voted for? I wanted to see a woman in the office. But I did not want the country to suffer from ObamaCare. I was torn but then my family, including my parents, moved to Brown so I did as well. It was a strategic vote. I don't mean to imply that I think Scott Brown is evil or a bad person. But I would have preferred to have voted for Martha Coakley. She made that impossible by going from the outsider primary challenge to in bed with Barack.
Mike: I'd agree with my mother. I actually didn't know who she voted for until right now. I knew she was torn in the last day's leading up and we all tried to back off from asking her. There, in the family, there really was excitement -- like the kind Betty wrote about on her blog -- the minute we tipped. At first it was just my two uncles and then it was my grandfather and then it just snowballed and we were all going to be voting for Brown. At that point, it was all we talked about and we did talk about the election with Mom but we knew she was torn on whom to vote for and we made a decision not to pressure her -- either to vote for Brown or tell us who she voted for.
Jess: Trina and Mike, since you were on the ground election day, what do you think the coverage then or since has missed?
Trina: I think Mike wrote about this before the election, the day of the election and after but I would agree and say that it was the number of Democrats that went for Brown.
Betty: I'm in California and I'm excited by the race -- I'm a Democrat -- so I don't understand how it would be possible that some Democrats wouldn't be excited in your state as well. But I don't see that in the coverage.
Trina: Right. The coverage maintains that Republicans got out their base and independents broke for Brown. It doesn't add up for me. We heard a similar argument when Romney won the governor's race awhile back -- Mitt Romney -- and when you checked the breakdown, these were Democratic strongholds that also went for Romney. Without at least some Democrats, Romney wouldn't have won. The same with Brown. That's because we're not a state that has an equal number of registered Republicans and Democrats. We are overwhelmingly Democrat. So much so that the suggestion that a significant number stayed home and that's why Brown won makes no sense. Brown won Democratic votes. He won them in my family -- as well as Socialist votes -- he won them in my church. He won them on our block. We didn't put up a Brown sign. We had a Coakley sign up during the primary. We didn't put up a Brown sign but there were Brown signs all over our block.
Jim: Mike?
Mike: Well . . . I've written about this and I agree with my mother but C.I. has an interesting take. Each week, C.I., Ava, Kat and Wally end their road trip in our area and we see them Friday until they fly out early Saturday. And we have the Iraq study group on Friday and they all share various things in that like they did reports on the Congressional hearings they attended this week and C.I. did a report on the Iraq Inquiry. After the study group broke up, which means maybe half the people left, and we were all mingling, I walked over to a group C.I. was in and she was talking about anger.
C.I.: The question, which I won't be able to remember exactly, was about the media portrayal of the anger and the Dems portrayal of it and how it was a new development and how dealing with this or that would make it go away. I was asked that -- better worded than I just summarized it -- and I said that was nonsense. I wondered if Pat Caddell was polling on this because, if so, he should certainly grasp that it is not a new development. And I went on with explanations of that and Pat's work in the early seventies, chiefly for the McGovern campaign, but I think Mike really wanted was my stating it's not just the economy. I haven't heard James Carville say, "It's the economy, stupid." But he doesn't need to in a world of a myna birds. It's not just the economy. We've had economic downturns before -- and had them with out of touch presidents in office. It's the mood. The mood is a combination of many things including, yes, the economy but also including the wars. In fact, the wars -- and I think Pat Caddell could poll on this and pinpoint it -- are the source of the unrest. The economy comes on top of that. It's like during Vietnam, the wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- are out there, buried by the press or not -- and they weigh on the country's psyche. And when you think about the economy for any length of time, you will usually come to the point of the economic costs of the Iraq War, for example. It is the wars, it is the economy and it is the failed politicians who do not live up to their words. Those are the three most significant factors in the mood of the country. As long as the wars continue to drag on the country will be 'restless' at best. That will be the case even if unemployment goes down in March.
Elaine: I agree completely and "out of sight, out of mind" does not apply. The media can -- and apparently has -- decided to hide the wars. What they wouldn't do for Bush, they will for Barack. But they can hide all they want, the reality is the wars continue and a person can hide from reality, can try to block it out and deny it, but it's still going to leave an impression on the psyche and the wars are leaving an impression on the national psyche. I also agree with C.I. regarding the anger being similar to the Vietnam era. What people may not remember is that Kennedy-LBJ started the war and Nixon campaigned on a 'secret plan' to end it but continued it. He was re-elected, Nixon, to a second term still claiming a 'secret plan' to end it. It was having both major political parties continue the war and having both lie about ending it that bred the anger which stemmed from the frustration over the war.
Jim: Okay. Interesting. Dona's slid me a note which says Wally, Kat, Isaiah and Ava haven't spoken at all and that Ruth has barely spoken. We're getting close to the wind down so let's turn to the four who haven't spoken. I'll start with Isaiah so we can deal with one topic. Isaiah, no comic last Sunday. Why?
Isaiah: I'm laughing at that question. Last week was not a productive writing edition here and Ava and C.I. made it very clear that were not pleased by that. They had a hard deadline for when they needed to be done because they were going to the Golden Globes that evening. They didn't get to leave then and they were very upset and very vocal about that. And, as a result, after I woke up Sunday afternoon, I decided I wouldn't do a comic and I e-mailed C.I. to let her know that late Sunday night.
Jim: That was a very kind way of putting it. Mike was kind in "John V. Walsh, Lance Selfa" as well. Ava, you want to try to take the gloves off?
Ava: Sure. It was four a.m. here and we were going off to do our TV piece, C.I. and I. The last thing I said to you, to you Jim, was, "You better get something workable written and stop bullsh**ting." We came back and nothing was done while we were gone. From ten a.m. our time -- PST -- until four a.m. PST, the only thing that was written was the editorial. Things were started. They weren't finished. They didn't appear workable but maybe they were, I don't know. So C.I. and I go off to write our article and come back and there's still nothing there. A roundtable is quickly called hoping that will provide an easy article. C.I. was adament that a roundtable whose topic was this site seemed vain in a strong edition and would seem incredibly deluded with a weak edition. We had a weak edition and, ask Ty, the response was not pleasant from our readers.
Jim: No, it wasn't. And I'll take the fall for it. I pushed for it. I was warned against it. Now part of the reason nothing was accomplished was because we were sharing a lot of memories. Last week, for those who don't know, was this site's fifth anniversary. And reflections took up a lot of time. I thought, when we were trying to get a strong piece, that we could bring in some of the stories we'd already shared -- bring them into a roundtable. It really didn't work out that way. And the roundtable really didn't work. Again, I'll take the fall. I pushed for it. I was warned against it and I chose not to listen. Wally and Kat and Ruth, you can weigh in on this or another topic, up to you.
Kat: I think we'll cover this in another article but I want to bring it up here. For background, see C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and my "Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity." A subcomittee hearing heard from the VA about what they were doing regarding getting benefit checks to veterans. We're talking about the GI Bill. And we heard the same excuses from the VA that we always here and, worse, we heard the same "Please, let us know when there are problems. Please, don't surprise us anymore." The VA walks over veterans and Congress just says "please." It's disgusting. There should have been real hearings and the VA should have been held accountable.
Wally: I agree with Kat. We were all, Kat, Ava, C.I. and myself, talking to three veterans after that hearing and those three were not pleased and do not feel Congress is providing oversight or addressing the problem. I agree with that.
Jim: Ruth? You get the last word.
Ruth: Hmm. I do agree that the VA should have heard hearings. Are we only concerned when it is life or death? Walter Reed only concerns us because that is medical abuse? We are not concerned when the issue is veterans waiting months and months for checks? As C.I. explained in the snapshot, approximately 1,000 veterans are still waiting for their benefit checks for the 2009 fall sememster. Right now, they continue waiting. That is not acceptable and the Congress needs to be demanding answers and accountability.
Jim: Thank you, Ruth. And on that note, we wrap up. This is a rush transcript.